Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has focussed the Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the respondent to restore the fixation of his seniority with reference to the date of his initial appointment on 03.12.1987 and grant him all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School, Azhinjimangalam, Nagapattinam Block, Nagapattinam District. He was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 02.12.1987 and joined duty as such on 03.12.1987. His service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher were regularized with effect from 03.12.1987. He was appointed in the erstwhile Thanjavur District (which was subsequently trifurcated into Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur District). The erstwhile Thanjavur District was first bifurcated into Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Districts in the year 1991. Consequent to the said bifurcation of the Districts, options were called for from the employees with regard to absorption in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Districts. 3. The petitioner's native District is Nagapattinam. He opted for being posted in Nagapattinam District on 22.09.1993. He was accordingly posted in the Nagapattinam District on 22.09.1993. He was servicing continuously as Secondary Grade Teacher, ever since of his date of appointment on 03.12.1987. His seniority all along was with reference to his first appointment viz., on 03.12.1987. Even after his absorption in Nagapattinam District, his seniority was continued to remain with reference to the date of initial appointment namely, 03.12.1987 for 13 years, his seniority was continuing with reference to the date of his initial appointment namely, on 03.12.1987. No one objected to his seniority, his seniority was fixed with reference to his initial appointment date on 03.12.1987, in the seniority list issued on 11.07.2006. 4. The Respondent/Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Nagapattinam issued a seniority list on 28.08.2006 in which the petitioner's seniority was fixed with reference to the date of absorption in Nagapattinam District namely, on 23.09.1993. Individuals appointed in Nagapattinam District between 03.12.1987 (the date of petitioner's initial appointment) and 23.09.1993 (the date of petitioner's absorption in Nagapattinam District) are placed above him in the seniority list. On pursuing the seniority list, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 11.09.2006, requesting him to restore the fixation of his seniority with reference to his initial appointment on 03.12.1987. No order was passed on his representation. On pursuing the seniority list, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 11.09.2006, requesting him to restore the fixation of his seniority with reference to his initial appointment on 03.12.1987. No order was passed on his representation. Only when the respondent was taking steps to effect promotion on the basis of the said seniority list prepared, the petitioner was per-forced to file the present writ petition before this Court. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and his service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher were regularized with effect from 03.12.1987 and even after the District bifurcation, his seniority was fixed with reference to the date of his initial appointment on 03.12.1987 and that the District bifurcation made for administrative convenience and options were called for from the employees of the erstwhile Thanjavur District for being posted in Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Districts. 6. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner belongs to Nagapattinam District, he opted for being posted in his native Nagapattinam District although an option was called for, it was an administrative transfer and the seniority of the petitioner was rightly fixed from the date of his appointment. For nearly 13 years, his seniority remained with reference to the date of initial appointment on 03.12.1987. It was not challenged by anyone. 7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner projects his argument that as per Rule 35(f) of Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules, objection regarding seniority of a person ought to be preferred within three years and any objection filed after three years should be summarily rejected. 8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner expatiating his submission contends that one Rajan had raised an objection regarding seniority, after long lapse of 13 years and this objection was contrary to the statutory rule and indeed the rule, of seniority after 13 years, unsettling the apple cart would be against interest of the petitioner whose initial appointment was on 03.12.1987. 9. 9. Per Contra, the Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in erstwhile Thanjavur on 03.12.1987 and due to bifurcation of Thanjavur District (Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Districts), he opted for being posted in Nagapattinam District because that district was his native district and the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai as per proceedings G3/43188/91 dated 31.07.1992, ordered that the transfer of teachers (including the petitioner) on District Transfers would be placed junior in the Secondary Grade Teacher seniority list maintained in the new district with reference to their date of joining in the new district. 10. The petitioner joined duty in the new station (Nagapattinam District) on 23.09.1993. He was placed in the seniority list maintained in the Nagapattinam District with reference to his initial appointment on 03.12.1987 and not with reference to the date of joining in the new district. His seniority was fixed with reference to the date of initial appointment on 03.12.1987 and accordingly, he was placed in the seniority list published during the years i.e., 01.03.1998, 01.03.2003, 01.03.2004 and 01.03.2006 respectively. During the year 2005, no seniority list was published by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. He was continuing with reference to his initial appointment on 03.12.1987 for nearly 14 years. On 28.08.2006, a revised seniority list was published in respect of the year 2006 (ie., as on 01.03.2006) by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer,(in charge), Nagapattinam District his seniority was re-fixed with reference to his date of joining as S.No.42 instead of original S.No.18. 11. The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent strenuously contends that the seniority of the petitioner was to be fixed with regard to the date of joining duty in the new station and the plea of fixing the seniority in respect of date of initial appointment of the petitioner was not acceptable one because of the fact that the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai as per proceedings G3/43188/91 dated 31.07.1992 had clearly mentioned (including the petitioner) that those teachers who would be transferred on District Transfer would be placed junior in the Secondary Grade Teacher maintained in the new district with reference to their date of joining in the new district and as such the contrary claim made by the petitioner could not be accepted by this Court. 12. 12. It transpires that though the petitioner's seniority based on his initial appointment on 03.12.1987 was continuing for 14 years, the order of Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai in his proceedings G3/43188/91 dated 31.07.1992 was not adhered to and scrupulously followed by the concerned, obviously the non compliance of the order of the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai in his proceedings G3/43188/91 dated 31.07.1992 had made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. The disparity/discrepancy in regard to the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list was finally rectified. He was given the rightful place in the seniority according to his date of joining the new station. 13. At this stage, it is worthwhile for this Court to refer to Rule 35(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which enjoins as follows: “The seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or other Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority. Also, Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules visualises the following: The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, where the normal method of recruitment to that service, class, category or grade is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the services, class, category or grade; Provided that where the junior appointed by a particular method or recruitment happens to be appointed to a service, class, category or grade, earlier than the senior appointed by the same method of recruitment, the senior shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day on which the junior was so appointed: Provided further that the benefit of the above proviso shall be available to the senior only for the purpose of fixing inter-se-seniority: Provided also that where persons appointed by more than one method of recruitment are appointed or deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day, their inter-se-seniority shall be decided with reference to their age. Substituted in G.O.Ms.No.523, P & AR, dated 04.06.1982, w.e.f. 13.07.1978.” 14. This Court also aptly quotes Rule 35(f) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which is as follows: “Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority, as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases if rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts. Added in G.O.Ms.No.1140, P & AR (Per P), dated 02.12.11983.” 15. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases if rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts. Added in G.O.Ms.No.1140, P & AR (Per P), dated 02.12.11983.” 15. As far as the present case is concerned, though the petitioner was placed in the seniority list originally as per his initial appointment dated 03.12.1987, the very fact that the Director, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai in his proceedings G3/43188/91 dated 31.07.1992 had clearly mentioned in categorical terms that the seniority of teachers on District Transfers would be placed junior in the Secondary Grade Teacher list maintained in the new district with reference to the date of joining in the new district. This Court opines that the said proceedings of the Director, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai would override the claim made by the petitioner in reference to fixation of his seniority based on his initial appointment on 03.12.1987. A cursory glance of Rule 35(f) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules pellucidly make it clear that the said rule "shall not, however, be applicable to case of rectifying orders resulting from mistake of facts". As such the plea of 3 years limitation for raising an objection as regards the seniority of an individual is not acceded to by this Court. 16. In the present case on hand, obviously mistake has crept in and the mistake committed by the authorities concerned, by showing the petitioner in the seniority list published on 01.03.1998, 01.03.2003, 01.03.2004 and 01.03.2006 cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner, to his aid. The mistake committed by the authorities concerned earlier, could not be taken advantage of by the petitioner either as a premium or as a Lever to cement his, ineligible claim. 17. A candid fact remains is that in the seniority list published on 01.03.1998, 01.03.2003, 01.03.2004 and 01.03.2006 etc., the petitioner name was wrongly shown in the seniority list based on his initial appointment. Later in the revised seniority list on 28.08.2006 namely, as on 01.03.2006 published by the Respondent/District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, (in-charge) Nagapattinam District, the petitioner's seniority was rightly fixed with reference to his date of joining duty in the new district as S.No.42 (instead of original S.No.18). 18. Later in the revised seniority list on 28.08.2006 namely, as on 01.03.2006 published by the Respondent/District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, (in-charge) Nagapattinam District, the petitioner's seniority was rightly fixed with reference to his date of joining duty in the new district as S.No.42 (instead of original S.No.18). 18. Looking at any angle and also on the assessment of the facts and circumstances in a conspectus fashion, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claim of the petitioner that his seniority is to be fixed with reference to the date of appointment on 03.12.1987 in the new Nagapattinam District is an unacceptable and untenable one. Viewed in that perspective, the writ petition is devoids of merits and consequently, it fails. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving both the parties to bear their own costs.